Villa Park, Union Agree--almost

Rejection Sparks Hint Of Strike

March 12, 1986|By Neil H. Mehler.

Villa Park`s public employees union has come within inches of getting its first contract.

But the village board Monday night unanimously rejected the union`s offer because of one item: the demand that the handful of employees who refuse to join the union pay a ``fair-share`` contribution to compensate the union for efforts on their behalf.

The union and the village have been wrangling for 21 months, and the union members haven`t had a raise in all that time.

There are 55 full-time and 18 part-time public works employees, school crossing guards and clerical workers involved. They voted overwhelmingly in December, 1984, to affiliate with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Angry union members told a reporter after their offer was rejected that six public works employees have refused to join the union and that they are holding up the contract and raises.

Michael Newman, assistant director for the Illinois council of AFSCME, said it is possible that the union members will vote for a ``work stoppage``

to protest the lack of a contract. If so, they would have to give a five-day notice under state law.

Village Manager Kevin O`Donnell said Tuesday that no notice had been received.

The village hired James Baird, of the labor law firm of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in Chicago, to handle the negotiations. He told the board that the negotiating team gave ``a hearty recommendation`` to the union proposal, except for the fair-share payment, which was up to the village board to accept or reject.

The village had to compromise on some points, Baird said.

Newman characterized the proposal as one that would provide ``fair employment conditions, fair wages, fair benefits, a fair grievance method and all paying a fair share of the cost.`` He said the union also compromised on some items.

He said the points of agreement would cost the village about $206,000 over the next two years. Union members would receive the equivalent of a 6.16 percent average increase in wages and benefits retroactive to May 1, 1985, and 5.7 percent the second year. For the third and final year of the union proposal, there would be reopened discussions of wages only.

The proposal attempts to bring wages up faster for low-paid workers, such as clerical employees and crossing guards, with higher percentage increases than those for other job classifications.

The village would pay all health insurance coverage costs and any increase in them over the life of the contract.

Baird said the settlement would give the union members ``a little more than the police officers got and a little less than the firefighters got``

when the village granted raises last year.

Newman said the law requires the union to treat nonmembers in the departments covered by a contract fairly. Thus, there would be costs for administration and grievance hearings that union members would have to pay for nonmembers. This is why the union demanded fair-share payments, perhaps up to 80 percent of union dues, from nonmembers, he said.

Village President Douglas Brandow said he had some reservations about points in the union proposal but would ``go along with it wholeheartedly``

except for the fair-share demand.

Trustee Lawrence Kenyon said, ``Perhaps the village bargained away too much.`` But he said he would vote for it except the part ``that would coerce employees to pay dues against their will.``

After the board voted, a union member told a reporter, ``It`s very one-sided. Six people are holding this up.`` He was referring to the workers who didn`t want to join AFSCME.

Several village officials said off the record that they didn`t think the union would strike.